The acquired cohort contains 3 official alert references published from 2016-06-17 to 2024-08-30. This page compares 2 selected, distinct product descriptions, including holi colour powder. The other 1 records still contribute to the cohort counts but are not displayed: descriptions may repeat, lack the display inputs, or fall outside the eight-description display limit. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about labels/instructions, microbial evidence. Compare the product features and dated findings below before scoping an investigation. These historical observations do not determine your product’s compliance or a market failure rate.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Dated official observations
Compare the product features and reported failure mechanism
The source wording below describes the reported case at that time. Read each complete report before using it in an investigation.
Holi colour powder · A12/0748/16
Report published 2016-06-17 · notifying country Germany · reported origin India
Reported product description
100g transparent bag, welded and printed, filled with dark blue powder. [1]
Reported risk explanation
null More than 30% of the particles in the powder are small enough to get into the pulmonary alveoli and it contains talc which should be kept away from nose and mouth of children under 3 years of age. In addition, the powder contains the dye CI 42535 which can cause serious eye damage and is harmful if ingested and it is contaminated by aerobic mesophilic bacteria (measured value 19000 cfu/g).The product has no adequate label claiming compulsory use of mouth, nose and eye protection and it can with regard to its foreseeable and promoted use lead to respiratory and eye problems and infections as the powder may be inhaled, come in contact with the mouth, hands and eyes and exposure to children cannot be excluded.The product does not comply with the Cosmetic Products Regulation. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): DistributorCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 18/02/2016Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): DistributorCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 18/02/2016 [1]
Report published 2016-06-17 · notifying country Germany · reported origin India
Reported product description
100g transparent plastic bag, fused and printed, filled with red powder. [2]
Reported risk explanation
null The powder contains talc which should be kept away from nose and mouth of children under 3 years of age. In addition, the powder contains the dye CI 45170 which can cause serious eyes damage and it is contaminated by aerobic mesophilic bacteria (measured value 36000 cfu/g).The product has no adequate label claiming not to breathe the dust and can with regard to its foreseeable and promoted use lead to respiratory problems and infections as the powder may be inhaled, come in contact with the eyes and exposure to children cannot be excluded.The product does not comply with the Cosmetic Products Regulation. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): DistributorCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 18/02/2016Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): DistributorCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 18/02/2016 [2]
3 distinct official alert references, published between 2016-06-17 and 2024-08-30. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2016
2
2024
1
Recorded risk labels within this evidence task
Label combinations are source facts within one comparison; they do not create separate guides with identical preparation tasks.
Health risk / other, Microbiological: 2 recorded references
Microbiological: 1 recorded references
Source selection, exclusions and calculation method
Filter the acquired, completely parsed English weekly XML releases. Deduplicate official alert references. Group by product category and the complete set of conditional evidence-question topics supported by actual risk text. Risk-label combinations remain recorded cohort facets and do not create buyer intents. Brand, product name, model, origin, notifying country, measurement-only changes and different wording of the same questions do not create intents. Unrecognized mechanisms stay internal for enrichment. Count report years and notifying countries deterministically. Display at most eight newest descriptions with at least 40 characters after whitespace normalization, nonempty reported measures and distinct casefolded descriptions; break date ties by official identifier. All cohort records count even if their description is shorter or not displayed. This is not a representative sample. Counts concern this acquired corpus only.
One acquired version per official public alert reference. Display at most eight newest distinct product descriptions whose normalized whitespace-collapsed text contains at least 40 characters and has nonempty reported measures; ties sort by official identifier. The complete cohort includes shorter descriptions. This is an explicit display selection, not a representative sample.
2 distinct descriptions displayed; 1 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {}.
These are selected, dated enforcement observations in the acquired weekly reports, not a random market sample, market-wide failure rate, proof of current product status, or a determination about your product. Notification country is not a complete sales-market or jurisdiction-coverage field. A quoted legal/standard reference is the report’s statement, not independently verified current law or a mandatory test panel.
Calculation safety-gate-evidence-comparison-10; units recorded alerts; no incidence denominator.
Turn the reported failure mechanism into a scoped investigation
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Microbial evidence, sampling and process handoff — what evidence do we have?
Where the product/formulation and use context make this mechanism relevant, identify the sampled batch, analytical method, packaging/use conditions and manufacturing controls. Have the specialist justify investigation and acceptance criteria for the actual product; the alert does not validate a preservative system.
Useful evidence: Batch/sample and method/results, formulation and packaging/use facts, manufacturing-control records and relevant existing microbiological evidence.
Labels, instructions and actual use — what evidence do we have?
Capture the exact label/instruction revision and destination/use context. Compare the information gap described in the report with your own product and current sector requirements, keeping a reported defect separate from a universal wording obligation.
Useful evidence: Current labels/instructions, revision and market/translation records, use/risk information and reviewed applicable requirements.
Can we trace the affected component, formula or design revision across our supplied products?
Compare the reported descriptions with your own identifiers and change records. Treat missing or “Unknown” source fields as unresolved; they do not establish that no action was needed.
Useful evidence: Product identifiers, revision history, supplier/batch traceability and market/operator records.
Who would own an evidence review and any resulting corrective-action decision?
Read the reported measures as historical observations. Establish your own operator roles, sector-specific rules, decision owner and communication responsibilities before adopting another case’s response.
Conditional: Product-risk evidence and operator-role review — Compare the reported cosmetic-product features and formula/label evidence with your formulation, use and markets. Review current ingredient conditions, safety-assessment inputs and RP/PIF responsibilities separately; an alert is not an automatic safety or legality determination.
Questions for providers
Which specific product features and reported risk mechanism make these cases relevant or irrelevant to our product?
What current legal, standards or scientific sources support your proposed investigation criteria, and what cannot be concluded from these dated alerts?
Which existing evidence can answer the risk question, what additional work is justified, and who owns any resulting corrective-action decision?
Sources and data dates
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
